# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Stamp Act | Benjamin Franklin | PBS | A Film by Ken Burns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first internal tax levied directly on American colonists by the British Parliament. The act, which imposed a tax on all paper documents in the colonies, came at a time when the British Empire was deep in debt from the Seven Years' War (1756-63) and looking to its North American colonies as a revenue source.

Arguing that only their own representative assemblies could tax them, the colonists insisted that the act was unconstitutional, and they resorted to mob violence to intimidate stamp collectors into resigning. Parliament passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765 and repealed it in 1766, but issued a Declaratory Act at the same time to reaffirm its authority to pass any colonial legislation it saw fit. The issues of taxation and representation raised by the Stamp Act strained relations with the colonies to the point that, 10 years later, the colonists rose in armed rebellion against the British.

Why The Stamp Act Was Passed

British Parliament passed the Stamp Act to help replenish their finances after the costly Seven Years' War with France. Part of the revenue from the Stamp Act would be used to maintain several regiments of British soldiers in North America to maintain peace between Native Americans and the colonists. Moreover, since colonial juries had proven notoriously reluctant to find smugglers guilty of their crimes, violators of the Stamp Act could be tried and convicted without juries in the vice-admiralty courts.

Raising Revenue

The Seven Years' War (1756-63) ended the long rivalry between France and Britain for control of North America, leaving Britain in possession of Canada and France without a footing on the continent. Victory in the war, however, had saddled the British Empire with a tremendous debt. Since the war benefited the American colonists (who had suffered 80 years of intermittent warfare with their French neighbors) as much as anyone else in the British Empire, the British government decided that those colonists should shoulder part of the war's cost.

Britain had long regulated colonial trade through a system of restrictions and duties on imports and exports. In the first half of the 18th century, however, British enforcement of this system had been lax. Starting with the Sugar Act of 1764, which imposed new duties on sugar and other goods, the British government began to tighten its reins on the colonies. Shortly thereafter, George Grenville (1712-70), the British first lord of the treasury and prime minister, proposed the Stamp Act; Parliament passed the act without debate in 1765.

Stamp Act opponent Patrick Henry is known for his "Give me liberty, or give me death!" speech, delivered before a meeting of Virginia's colonial leaders in 1775 in an effort to mobilize a militia against a possible attack by the British. He later served as Virginia's governor (1776-79, 1784-86).

Instead of levying a duty on trade goods, the Stamp Act imposed a direct tax on the colonists. Specifically, the act required that, starting in the fall of 1765, legal documents and printed materials must bear a tax stamp provided by commissioned distributors who would collect the tax in exchange for the stamp. The law applied to wills, deeds, newspapers, pamphlets and even playing cards and dice.

The Roots of Colonial Resistance

Coming in the midst of economic hardship in the colonies, the Stamp Act aroused vehement resistance. Although most colonists continued to accept Parliament's authority to regulate their trade, they insisted that only their representative assemblies could levy direct, internal taxes, such as the one imposed by the Stamp Act. They rejected the British government's argument that all British subjects enjoyed virtual representation in Parliament, even if they could not vote for members of Parliament.

The colonists also took exception with the provision denying offenders trials by jury. A vocal minority hinted at dark designs behind the Stamp Act. These radical voices warned that the tax was part of a gradual plot to deprive the colonists of their freedoms and to enslave them beneath a tyrannical regime. Playing off traditional fears of peacetime armies, they wondered aloud why Parliament saw fit to garrison troops in North America only after the threat from the French had been removed. These concerns provided an ideological basis that intensified colonial resistance.

Colonists React to the Stamp Act

Parliament pushed forward with the Stamp Act in spite of the colonists' objections. Colonial resistance to the act mounted slowly at first, but gained momentum as the planned date of its implementation drew near. In Virginia, Patrick Henry (1736-99), whose fiery orations against British tyranny would soon make him famous, submitted a series of resolutions to his colony's assembly, the House of Burgesses. These resolutions denied Parliament's right to tax the colonies and called on the colonists to resist the Stamp Act.

Newspapers throughout the colonies reprinted the resolutions, spreading their radical message to a broad audience. The resolutions provided the tenor for the proclamations of the Stamp Act Congress, an extralegal convention composed of delegates from nine colonies that met in October 1765. The Stamp Act Congress wrote petitions to the king affirming both their loyalty and the conviction that only the colonial assemblies had the constitutional authority to tax the colonists.

While the Congress and the colonial assemblies passed resolutions and issued petitions against the Stamp Act, the colonists took matters into their own hands. The most famous popular resistance took place in Boston, where opponents of the Stamp Act, calling themselves the Sons of Liberty, enlisted the rabble of Boston in opposition to the new law. This mob paraded through the streets with an effigy of Andrew Oliver, Boston's stamp distributor, which they hanged from the Liberty Tree and beheaded before ransacking Oliver's home. Oliver agreed to resign his commission as stamp distributor.

Similar events transpired in other colonial towns, as crowds mobbed the stamp distributors and threatened their physical well-being and their property. By the beginning of 1766, most of the stamp distributors had resigned their commissions, many of them under duress. Mobs in seaport towns turned away ships carrying the stamp papers from England without allowing them to discharge their cargoes. Determined colonial resistance made it impossible for the British government to bring the Stamp Act into effect. In 1766, Parliament repealed it.

The Stamp Act's Legacy

The end of the Stamp Act did not end Parliament's conviction that it had the authority to impose taxes on the colonists. The British government coupled the repeal of the Stamp Act with the Declaratory Act, a reaffirmation of its power to pass any laws over the colonists that it saw fit. However, the colonists held firm to their view that Parliament could not tax them. The issues raised by the Stamp Act festered for 10 years before giving rise to the Revolutionary War and, ultimately, American independence.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stamp Act - Fact, Reaction & Legacy | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first internal tax levied directly on American colonists by the British Parliament. The issues raised by the Stamp Act festered for 10 years before giving rise to the Revolutionary War and, ultimately, American independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Townshend Acts - Definition, Facts & Purpose | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Townshend Acts were a series of unpopular measures, passed by the British Parliament in 1767, that taxed goods imported to the American colonies. The laws heightened the tensions between Great Britain and the American colonists and were a precursor to the Revolutionary War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boston Tea Party: The Revolutionary War in Four Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On December 16, 1773, over one hundred American colonists dressed as Native Americans boarded three merchant ships in Boston Harbor and dumped 342 chests of tea (valued at approximately $1.7 million in today's currency) into the water. The tea belonged to the British East India Company, which had been granted a monopoly over tea imports into the colonies by the Tea Act of May 1773. This monopoly let the company undercut colonial merchants' prices on untaxed tea, forcing colonists who bought the cheaper product to recognize a British tax. Three ships loaded with tea, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor, and the Beaver, had arrived in Boston between November 28 and December 15. Colonists initially insisted that the tea be returned to England, but the colonial governor of Massachusetts and the East India Company's consignees-officials empowered to sell and collect taxes on the tea-refused.

In response, the Sons of Liberty organized a mass meeting of thousands at Boston's Old South Meeting House. When final word came that the tea ships would not be allowed to return to England, the Sons of Liberty set in motion a secret plan to destroy the tea. A group of colonists disguised in Native American attire headed from the meeting to Griffin's Wharf, where the tea ships were moored. Many hundreds more followed to watch the destruction of the tea.

When word got back to England about what the Bostonians had done, British officials punished the rebellious Massachusetts colonists by passing a series of laws that became known as the "Intolerable Acts," further increasing tensions between Britain and the American colonists. The destruction of the tea, which came to be known as the Boston Tea Party, was a crucial turning point in the escalation of the American Revolution and became a powerful symbol of American protest and independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On December 16, 1773, over one hundred American colonists dressed as Native Americans boarded three merchant ships in Boston Harbor and dumped 342 chests of tea (valued at approximately $1.7 million in today's currency) into the water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unraveling the Declaratory Act of 1766: A Quick, Detailed Look at Colonial Legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Declaratory Act of 1766 | Definition, Purpose, & Reaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the Declaratory Act of 1766. Discover why the British implemented this act, and how people reacted to it in the Thirteen Colonies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Facts About the Proclamation of 1763 | History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Committees of correspondence were longstanding institutions that became a key communications system during the early years of the American Revolution (1772-1776). Towns, counties, and colonies from Nova Scotia to Georgia had their own committees of correspondence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The reaction to the tea parties in London came strong and swift. Too many times, the colonies had pushed back on British authority. Colonists' rebellious acts were becoming more deliberate; now they had destroyed private property and committed an overt illegal act. In response to the insubordinate actions, Parliament passed a series of laws called the Coercive Acts on March 31, 1774 (called the Intolerable Acts by American colonists). The intent was to punish Massachusetts and set a precedent for Parliament's authority. When pressed on what these laws would incite in the colonies, Prime Minister Lord North said: " Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over."

The Coercive Acts included first the closing of the Port of Boston until the damaged tea was paid for and the King believed that order was restored in the colony. To ensure the colony fell back into line, these acts punished everyone in Boston, not just those responsible for destroying the tea. The closed port had a direct economic impact on Boston as the city made its living off of its docks and associated trades. The second act canceled the Massachusetts Bay colonial charter and replaced it with a stricter British government role. The upper house of the state legislature would now be appointed, where before it was an elected body. This act also limited the popular town meetings in Massachusetts to one annual meeting per town. The third part of the Coercive Acts called for any trials against royal officials to be held in Great Britain, not Massachusetts. Colonists believed this would shelter royal officials from proper justice. Royal authorities believed that trials like the one after the Boston Massacre were skewed heavily against them (even though those soldiers were successfully defended). Finally, the last act impacted all of the American colonies. It gave royal officials in the colonies authority to quarter British troops in buildings if the colonial government did not provide suitable housing. Typically, this meant large civic buildings and uninhabited buildings could be put into service for quartering troops. Though many feared this would lead to British soldiers being forced into private homes, at the time of 1774 that was not the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Colonial Responses to the Intolerable Acts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the Boston Tea Party, Britain reacted strongly and the American colonies started to unite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lexington & Concord: The Revolutionary War in Four Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this first battle of the American Revolution, Massachusetts colonists defied British authority, outnumbered and outfought the Redcoats, and embarked on a lengthy war to earn their independence.
HOW IT ENDED
American victory. The British marched into Lexington and Concord intending to suppress the possibility of rebellion by seizing weapons from the colonists. Instead, their actions sparked the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The colonists' intricate alarm system summoned local militia companies, enabling them to successfully counter the British threat.
IN CONTEXT
Thomas Gage was appointed Royal Governor of Massachusetts in 1774 and tasked by the British Parliament with stamping out rising unrest caused by restrictive British policies. Gage inflamed tensions between the colonies and the mother country and practiced harsh enforcement of British law. He drafted the Coercive Acts, a series of laws intended to punish colonists for deeds of defiance against the King, such as the Boston Tea Party.

By April 1775, Gage was facing the threat of outright rebellion. He hoped to prevent violence by ordering the seizure of weapons and powder being stored in Concord, Massachusetts, twenty miles northwest of Boston. But he underestimated the courage and determination of the colonists. Patriot spies got wind of Gage's plan. On the evening of April 18, Paul Revere and other riders raised the alarm that British regulars were on their way to Concord. Minute Men and militias rushed to confront them early on April 19. Though it is uncertain who actually fired the first shot that day, it reverberated throughout history. Eight years of war followed, and those who stood their ground against Gage's troops eventually earned independence from Britain and became citizens of the democratic United States of America.

Before the Battle

British Lt. Col. Francis Smith assembles the 700 regulars under his command to capture and destroy military stores presumably hidden by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. When the King's troops depart Boston for Concord on the evening of April 18, anti-British intelligence quickly informs patriot leader Dr. Joseph Warren about their intentions. Warren sends for riders Paul Revere and William Dawes to spread the alarm. Revere takes the short water route from Boston across the harbor to Charlestown, while Dawes rides out across Boston Neck. Revere and Dawes depart Boston around 10:00 p.m. At the same time, two lanterns briefly flicker from the Old North Church steeple, a prearranged signal designed by Revere to alert the patriot network that the British will row across Boston harbor instead of marching out over the Neck.

On reaching the Charlestown shore, Revere mounts and begins his ride to Lexington. As he passes through the towns of Somerville, Medford, and Menotomy (now Arlington), other riders set out, guns fire, and church bells peal-all warning the countryside of the coming threat. Minute Men grab their weapons and head for town greens, followed by the rest of the militia. By the time the British cross the water, word of their imminent arrival has already reached Concord.

During the Battle

April 19. British troops march into the small town of Lexington at about 5:00 a.m. to find themselves faced by a militia company of more 70 men led by Capt. John Parker. When the vanguard of the British force rushes toward them across the town green, Parker immediately orders his company to disperse. At some point a shot rings out-historians still debate who fired it-and the nervous British soldiers fire a volley, killing seven and mortally wounding one of the retreating militiamen. The British column moves on toward Concord, leaving the dead, wounded, and dying in their wake.

Arriving in Concord at approximately 8:00 a.m., British commanders Francis Smith and John Pitcairn order several companies, about 220 troops in all, to secure the North Bridge across the Concord River and then continue on another mile to the Barrett Farm, where a cache of arms and powder is presumably located. A growing assembly of close to 400 militia from Concord and the surrounding towns gather on the high ground, where they see smoke rising from Concord. Mistakenly assuming the Redcoats are torching the town, the militia companies advance. The Acton Company, commanded by 30-year-old Capt. Isaac Davis, is at the head of the column. When asked if his men are prepared to confront the British troops, Davis says, "I haven't a man afraid to go."

As the Minute Men march down the hill, the British soldiers, intimidated by their numbers and orderly advance, retreat to the opposite shore and prepare to defend themselves. When Davis's company comes within range, the Redcoats open fire, killing Davis and also Abner Hosmer, another Acton Minute Man. Major Buttrick of Concord shouts, "For God's sake, fire!" and the Minute Men respond, killing three British soldiers and wounding nine others. This volley is considered "the shot heard round the world" and sends the British troops retreating back to town.

Smith and Pitcairn order a return to Boston, which devolves into a rout as the British are attacked from all sides by swarms of angry Minute Men along what is now known as Battle Road. When they reach Lexington, Parker's men take their revenge for the violence suffered that morning, firing on the British regulars from behind cover. For the next 12 miles, the British are continually ambushed by Minute Men shooting from behind trees, rock walls, and buildings. British reinforcements reach Smith and Pitcairn's men on the eastern outskirts of Lexington, but the Minute Men pursue them as they retreat back to Boston.

Aftermath

The British conduct a running fight until they can reach the cover of British guns on ships anchored in the waterways surrounding Boston. The Patriots chase them but, having no clear orders, ultimately let them escape.

In the wake of Lexington and Concord, Governor Gage finds Boston faced by a huge militia of men who have arrived from throughout New England to fight for liberty. Numbering 20,000, this resolute force will become part of the Continental Army.

Lexington and Concord: Featured Resources

Massachusetts | Apr 19, 1775

Result: American Victory
Est. Casualties: 393
American: 93
British: 300

Massachusetts | Apr 19, 1775 - Mar 17, 1776

Result: American Victory
Est. Casualties: 98
American: 19
British: 79

Massachusetts | Jun 17, 1775

Result: British Victory
Est. Casualties: 1,532
American: 450
British: 1,054

Related Battles

Massachusetts | April 19, 1775

John Parker

Massachusetts | Apr 19, 1775

Result: American Victory
Est. Casualties: 393
American: 93
British: 300

Massachusetts | Apr 19, 1775 - Mar 17, 1776

Result: American Victory
Est. Casualties: 98
American: 19
British: 79

Massachusetts | Jun 17, 1775

Result: British Victory
Est. Casualties: 1,532
American: 450
British: 1,054

John Parker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this first battle of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775, Massachusetts colonists defied British authority, outnumbered and outfought the Redcoats, and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps none of the punitive acts passed by the British parliament to quell the rebellious activities occurring in the colonies during the buildup to the Revolutionary War were quite as personal as the Quartering Act of 1774. While other acts dealt with taxation, regulation, trade, and the administration of justice, the Quartering Act actually dealt with the disposition of armed British soldiers in the colonies. The Quartering Act specified the conditions for the lodging of British troops in all of colonial North America. However, there are many misconceptions about the Quartering Act.

The Quartering Act of 1774 was not the first British quartering act. With an empire that stretched across the world, the British needed to quarter troops in countries all around the globe. Though many British soldiers had stayed in the American colonies during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), some continued to stay in the colonies following the conflict. Having a standing regular army in colonial cities during peacetime began to lead to resentment and anger among the colonial leaders. While in London, this force was viewed as a necessary evil to help secure the borders of the British North American empire.

In 1765, Parliament passed an amendment to the Mutiny Act, which became known as the Quartering Act of 1765. Contrary to popular belief, this Quartering Act did not direct British soldiers to be billeted in the private homes of the colonists. The 1765 act actually prohibited British soldiers from being quartered in private homes, but it did make the colonial legislatures responsible for paying for and providing for barracks or other accommodations to house British regulars. Other accommodations the colonists could billet British troops in included "inns, livery stables, ale houses" and other public houses.

British soldiers had been housed in New York and other American cities but were generally forced to stay in military barracks. In the city of Boston, the placement of British troops constantly was an issue as the city tried to keep them farther from the center of the city, while the British officers pushed to have them closer among the townsfolk.

Relationships between British soldiers and colonial civilians were often tense and occasionally boiled over into violence, especially in Boston. In the most famous incident, on March 5, 1770, after a few heated exchanges, a group of British soldiers fired into a crowd of Bostonians killing five and wounding six in an event that would be branded as the Boston Massacre.

As tensions continued to grow between the soldiers and civilians, the people of Boston continued to fight back against the British attempts to tax and control them. This culminated in December of 1773 when numerous Bostonians, in an act of defiance, dumped thousands of pounds of British tea into Boston Harbor.

In 1774, following the infamous Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed four acts known as the Coercive Acts. The first three acts closed the port of Boston, took away Massachusetts' ability to self-govern, and removed their ability to administer justice to British soldiers in the colony. The last act passed was the Quartering Act of 1774 which applied not just to Massachusetts, but to all the American colonies, and was only slightly different than the 1765 act. This new act allowed royal governors, rather than colonial legislatures, to find homes and buildings to quarter or house British soldiers. This only further enraged the colonists by having what appeared to be foreign soldiers boarded in American cities and taking away their authority to keep the soldiers distant.

As it had been an ongoing debate in colonial British America, the 1774 act sought to clarify and expand the British ability to quarter troops in American cities. It stated upfront that "doubts have been entertained whether troops can be quartered otherwise than in barracks" and the Royal governor had the right to use "uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings" to quarter soldiers. While "other buildings" could be open to broad interpretation, contrary to popular belief, the 1774 act (like the 1765 act) did not mandate that British soldiers stay in the occupied private homes of American colonists. In fact, it specifically prohibited it.

Regardless, the American colonists were enraged by the Quartering Act along with the other Coercive Acts and they were quickly rebranded "The Intolerable Acts." The Quartering Act was also especially reviled as it applied not just to rebellious Boston or Massachusetts but to all of the American colonies. Leaders in other colonies began to wonder what other punishments Great Britain may place on them for actions they were not responsible for.

The British troops continued to be quartered in Boston and on April 19, 1775, large scale bloodshed between British regular soldiers and Massachusetts militiamen broke out at the Battles of Lexington and Concord that began the American War for Independence.

A year later in July of 1776, Thomas Jefferson included the Quartering Act in the Declaration of Independence in a list of the "repeated injuries and usurpations." Among those grievances against King George III was that he "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures" and was "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." Though he was not referring to soldiers being stationed inside inhabited private homes, the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty.

The relationship between armed soldiers and the civilian governments became a central issue of the American Revolution. As the new United States of America formed its own army to defend the former colonies, it became paramount that this military bend to the will of the civilian government to ensure the military could not be used against the people. This was something George Washington would be especially sensitive to and would be sure to defer to civilian authority.

Following the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the issue of continuing to have a standing army during peacetime was fiercely debated. Many anti-Federalists in the early republic era would argue that the United States did not need a standing army during peacetime. As that debate continued in the new United States Congress, the issue of having soldiers stationed in American cities was agreed by all to be unacceptable.

Included in the new Bill of Rights for U.S. Constitution in 1790 was the Third Amendment. This Amendment stated that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Though it is often thought today as an irrelevant amendment, at the time following the Revolutionary War, it was considered a usurpation of American liberty to allow soldiers to be quartered among civilian populations and they wanted to ensure that American homes would be protected against the always looming possibility of an armed takeover. Although the British Army was prohibited from being boarded in private inhabited homes in America, the fact that the local government was effectively powerless opened the door to potential abuses of power. The popular narrative that British soldiers forced themselves into the homes of Americans proved to be a true fear of the American people that was addressed as the nation created the new United States Constitution.

Further Readings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perhaps none of the punitive acts passed by the British parliament to quell the rebellious activities occurring in the colonies during the buildup to the Revolutionary War were quite as personal as the Quartering Act of 1774.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unraveling the Declaratory Act of 1766: A Quick, Detailed Look at Colonial Legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Declaratory Act of 1766 | Definition, Purpose, & Reaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the Declaratory Act of 1766. Discover why the British implemented this act, and how people reacted to it in the Thirteen Colonies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps none of the punitive acts passed by the British parliament to quell the rebellious activities occurring in the colonies during the buildup to the Revolutionary War were quite as personal as the Quartering Act of 1774. While other acts dealt with taxation, regulation, trade, and the administration of justice, the Quartering Act actually dealt with the disposition of armed British soldiers in the colonies. The Quartering Act specified the conditions for the lodging of British troops in all of colonial North America. However, there are many misconceptions about the Quartering Act.

The Quartering Act of 1774 was not the first British quartering act. With an empire that stretched across the world, the British needed to quarter troops in countries all around the globe. Though many British soldiers had stayed in the American colonies during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), some continued to stay in the colonies following the conflict. Having a standing regular army in colonial cities during peacetime began to lead to resentment and anger among the colonial leaders. While in London, this force was viewed as a necessary evil to help secure the borders of the British North American empire.

In 1765, Parliament passed an amendment to the Mutiny Act, which became known as the Quartering Act of 1765. Contrary to popular belief, this Quartering Act did not direct British soldiers to be billeted in the private homes of the colonists. The 1765 act actually prohibited British soldiers from being quartered in private homes, but it did make the colonial legislatures responsible for paying for and providing for barracks or other accommodations to house British regulars. Other accommodations the colonists could billet British troops in included "inns, livery stables, ale houses" and other public houses.

British soldiers had been housed in New York and other American cities but were generally forced to stay in military barracks. In the city of Boston, the placement of British troops constantly was an issue as the city tried to keep them farther from the center of the city, while the British officers pushed to have them closer among the townsfolk.

Relationships between British soldiers and colonial civilians were often tense and occasionally boiled over into violence, especially in Boston. In the most famous incident, on March 5, 1770, after a few heated exchanges, a group of British soldiers fired into a crowd of Bostonians killing five and wounding six in an event that would be branded as the Boston Massacre.

As tensions continued to grow between the soldiers and civilians, the people of Boston continued to fight back against the British attempts to tax and control them. This culminated in December of 1773 when numerous Bostonians, in an act of defiance, dumped thousands of pounds of British tea into Boston Harbor.

In 1774, following the infamous Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed four acts known as the Coercive Acts. The first three acts closed the port of Boston, took away Massachusetts' ability to self-govern, and removed their ability to administer justice to British soldiers in the colony. The last act passed was the Quartering Act of 1774 which applied not just to Massachusetts, but to all the American colonies, and was only slightly different than the 1765 act. This new act allowed royal governors, rather than colonial legislatures, to find homes and buildings to quarter or house British soldiers. This only further enraged the colonists by having what appeared to be foreign soldiers boarded in American cities and taking away their authority to keep the soldiers distant.

As it had been an ongoing debate in colonial British America, the 1774 act sought to clarify and expand the British ability to quarter troops in American cities. It stated upfront that "doubts have been entertained whether troops can be quartered otherwise than in barracks" and the Royal governor had the right to use "uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings" to quarter soldiers. While "other buildings" could be open to broad interpretation, contrary to popular belief, the 1774 act (like the 1765 act) did not mandate that British soldiers stay in the occupied private homes of American colonists. In fact, it specifically prohibited it.

Regardless, the American colonists were enraged by the Quartering Act along with the other Coercive Acts and they were quickly rebranded "The Intolerable Acts." The Quartering Act was also especially reviled as it applied not just to rebellious Boston or Massachusetts but to all of the American colonies. Leaders in other colonies began to wonder what other punishments Great Britain may place on them for actions they were not responsible for.

The British troops continued to be quartered in Boston and on April 19, 1775, large scale bloodshed between British regular soldiers and Massachusetts militiamen broke out at the Battles of Lexington and Concord that began the American War for Independence.

A year later in July of 1776, Thomas Jefferson included the Quartering Act in the Declaration of Independence in a list of the "repeated injuries and usurpations." Among those grievances against King George III was that he "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures" and was "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." Though he was not referring to soldiers being stationed inside inhabited private homes, the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty.

The relationship between armed soldiers and the civilian governments became a central issue of the American Revolution. As the new United States of America formed its own army to defend the former colonies, it became paramount that this military bend to the will of the civilian government to ensure the military could not be used against the people. This was something George Washington would be especially sensitive to and would be sure to defer to civilian authority.

Following the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the issue of continuing to have a standing army during peacetime was fiercely debated. Many anti-Federalists in the early republic era would argue that the United States did not need a standing army during peacetime. As that debate continued in the new United States Congress, the issue of having soldiers stationed in American cities was agreed by all to be unacceptable.

Included in the new Bill of Rights for U.S. Constitution in 1790 was the Third Amendment. This Amendment stated that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Though it is often thought today as an irrelevant amendment, at the time following the Revolutionary War, it was considered a usurpation of American liberty to allow soldiers to be quartered among civilian populations and they wanted to ensure that American homes would be protected against the always looming possibility of an armed takeover. Although the British Army was prohibited from being boarded in private inhabited homes in America, the fact that the local government was effectively powerless opened the door to potential abuses of power. The popular narrative that British soldiers forced themselves into the homes of Americans proved to be a true fear of the American people that was addressed as the nation created the new United States Constitution.

Further Readings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perhaps none of the punitive acts passed by the British parliament to quell the rebellious activities occurring in the colonies during the buildup to the Revolutionary War were quite as personal as the Quartering Act of 1774.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The reaction to the tea parties in London came strong and swift. Too many times, the colonies had pushed back on British authority. Colonists' rebellious acts were becoming more deliberate; now they had destroyed private property and committed an overt illegal act. In response to the insubordinate actions, Parliament passed a series of laws called the Coercive Acts on March 31, 1774 (called the Intolerable Acts by American colonists). The intent was to punish Massachusetts and set a precedent for Parliament's authority. When pressed on what these laws would incite in the colonies, Prime Minister Lord North said: " Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over."

The Coercive Acts included first the closing of the Port of Boston until the damaged tea was paid for and the King believed that order was restored in the colony. To ensure the colony fell back into line, these acts punished everyone in Boston, not just those responsible for destroying the tea. The closed port had a direct economic impact on Boston as the city made its living off of its docks and associated trades. The second act canceled the Massachusetts Bay colonial charter and replaced it with a stricter British government role. The upper house of the state legislature would now be appointed, where before it was an elected body. This act also limited the popular town meetings in Massachusetts to one annual meeting per town. The third part of the Coercive Acts called for any trials against royal officials to be held in Great Britain, not Massachusetts. Colonists believed this would shelter royal officials from proper justice. Royal authorities believed that trials like the one after the Boston Massacre were skewed heavily against them (even though those soldiers were successfully defended). Finally, the last act impacted all of the American colonies. It gave royal officials in the colonies authority to quarter British troops in buildings if the colonial government did not provide suitable housing. Typically, this meant large civic buildings and uninhabited buildings could be put into service for quartering troops. Though many feared this would lead to British soldiers being forced into private homes, at the time of 1774 that was not the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Colonial Responses to the Intolerable Acts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the Boston Tea Party, Britain reacted strongly and the American colonies started to unite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History Brief: The Second Continental Congress and the Olive Branch Petition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Declaration of Independence | Benjamin Franklin | PBS | A Film by Ken Burns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Back to Main Declaration Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.